User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 38

Cause of death

Hi, I'm guessing that you especially wanted me to read this part, 'it should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness'. Sakić's death was not from old age nor was it from a routine illness. He died while awaiting a liver transplant thus, he died of liver complications; which greatly affected him as he had a heartattack as a result a few months prior; as stated in the death subheading. I don't mean this in any rude way but your constant editing of that particular piece of information is extremely irritating, it's like a roadblock. I only started editing a few days ago because it bothered me how poorly written and poorly kept the pages were of famous Serbs; as I am a Serb myself. I just wanted to organise the information, which is proving to be difficult due to your intervening. It's inconvenient and honestly, unnecessary. Again, not trying to be rude, but why do you care so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuliACC2112... (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria,

A few months back, you aided in a FA-Review for the 18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) by undertaking the image review side of things. One of the others requested a map added, which I have now done. In prep for another FA attempt, I was wondering if you could review the new image so I can try and take care of things now before review time? The new map is located here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Muar_map.jpg

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, that map is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Richards (surgeon).
Message added 08:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue V, May 2018 Headlines Armenia report: GLAM meetings and collaborations Australia report: GLAM Peak having impact & International Museum Day edit-a-thon Belgium report: Public domain month celebration; Edit-a-thon Amnesty International Vlaanderen; Upcoming photo contest: Wiki Loves Heritage Brazil report: New milestones for Brazilian GLAMs France report: Bibliothèque universitaire de la Sorbonne; Laboratoire Latmos; Study day on photographic as heritage Germany report: Two fantastic weekends with science fiction literature and the history of mining made audible Ireland report: First Irish GLAM upload to Wikimedia Commons; Hunt Museum is first Irish GLAM to donate images to Wikimedia Commons Italy report: Contests, webinair and meetings Macedonia report: GLAM activities Netherlands report: Women Tech Storm, GWToolset workshop and Wiki goes Caribbean Norway report: Bodil Biørn and human rights Portugal report: FEM's GLAM and Guinea-Bissau Russia report: GLAM in Russia: need more contests Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence in the Museum of Yugoslavia Sweden report: Democracy; Museum of World Culture UK report: Scottish Library and Information Council USA report: AfroCROWD Wikipedia Editor's Article on Doria Ragland Tops Wiki Search List For UK Royal Wedding: Libraries Key in her Wikipedian Journey Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes Wikidata report: EuropeanaTech conference, Lexicographical data, plus all your usual news WMF GLAM report: Recent travels; Structured Data on Commons updates Calendar: June's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 19:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with FAC

Hello there! I apologize for the random message, but I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC? It has already received an image review and a significant amount of commentary/reviews. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

William Branham FAC

Hello! Just wanted to see if you had any additional feedback on the William Branham FAC. I think I have addressed the issues you raised. If you are still concerned over copyright status on any images I will just remove them. I think there are really only minor issues standing between the article and FA status, so just want to work with you to see if I can get it there. I appreciate your time reviewing! I know how time consuming it can be, I have done quite a few myself over the years. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

CUP

Hi - I received an approval email for CUP via the Library on March 17th, but still have not received login info. I left a note on my application - could you take a look when you have a moment? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive.com access

Any idea what happened to this request? I haven't heard anything since you approved it in September 2017, and I got an email saying expect to hear something in a couple of weeks. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Any insight? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. @Nfitz: It appears your request was communicated to their partner, but they did not confirm yours among the list of those who had been granted accounts. I have sent in a fresh request; and will communicate back to you as soon as your access has been confirmed. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah @Nikkimaria: - I got a survey email from them the other day. Which was odd, as I didn't know how to log in. So I tried doing forgotten password requests - and lo and behold the account does exist. I must have gotten something, and set it up back in November. Though I don't recall that, or have any old email. Hmm, I wonder if they set it up with a generic password. Oh well - either way, it exists. And I'm in. A bit disappointing though - very US-centric - even more so than newspapers.com! Oh well, beggars can't be choosers. Thanks!

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Richards (surgeon)

Nikkimaria, when you called for a new reviewer, was that because you had counted and believed that, excluding the copied and closely paraphrased material, the article now exceeded 1500 original prose characters, or that you wanted another opinion on the state of the article? I just pinged you there, but recalling that pings don't always work for you, I've posted directly to your talk page. Please post there, so we know where we stand. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cavell

What's with the deleting all those who have been legitimately influenced by him. Please stop deleting Stanley Cavell's philosophical legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.216.113 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP, you need to provide reliable sourcing to support the assertion that these individuals have been influenced by Cavell. Until you do so, it stays out. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith, Nikkimaria. All those listed will be referenced as you require. but removing them now, after years of careful accumulation, is like playing with history just when interested people will be flocking to the site to find out more about Cavell. Few reputable sites have references for those influenced and influencing, in my experience--it takes knowledge of the individual and their life work to string these lists together. I would request, in the spirit of good faith, that you not simply delete without knowledge of what it is that you are deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.216.113 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP, I accept that these entries may have been added in good faith, but that does not mean that they are verifiable nor that they should hang about unsourced. We should not aim to present the people "flocking to the site to find out more about Cavell" with material that does not meet our own policies and guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that if you really want to walk down that road you and your colleagues have a lot of work to do; compare, for example, the documentation on who Emerson influenced at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson. Understanding influence in philosophy is not something you can discern only (or sometimes at all) from references. See a good realistic statement of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.248.214.126 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP, I quite agree there is a lot of work to be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Image licence question

Hi Nikkimaria, Can I ask your advice on an image that has been suggested at FAC for the Black Friday (1910) article. The image is here, and it appears to have been released by the LSE as having "No known copyright restrictions". Does this mean you are able to upload this to Commons without problems? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, this tag would apply to such an image, but as it mentions more specific tags should be added if possible. Is anything more known about the image's provenance, or might LSE know more? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I've not found anything about it yet, but I'll upload with that tag for now, and contact the Women's Library to see if they have anything else that would be helpful. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not this time

Nikkimaria, your CCI on Dawnleelynn was out of line. She's a good-faith editor and a little editing help is all that is needed, not a bludgeon. Try to be a bit less bitey and please withdraw your CCI. Where there are not a lot of sources and a lot of technical lingo, it can be a real challenge to develop the eye for fixing close paraphrasing problems. I suggest you help her instead of attacking. Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Montana (and Cwmhiraeth). CCI is in no way a BITE, attack, or a suggestion that an editor is not acting in good faith - most if not all who end up there are good-faith editors. If it were just this single article that were at issue, or if this were a newbie with a short editing history to review, I wouldn't go with that approach - but that's not where we are. And yes, of course it would have been ideal if this issue had been caught and flagged earlier - but it wasn't.

"Fix this article" or "Help this editor understand" are both A Good Thing, and necessary, but not sufficient. What I sincerely believe is needed here, having looked through a selection of the user's contributions, is a comprehensive review of the sort CCI is set up to provide. What I can do is start doing that myself, outside of CCI, and assuming a full cleanup can be accomplished in a reasonable timeframe I will withdraw the request. If one or both of you can work with the editor to ensure the problem does not reoccur, that would be most helpful - Montana, I know you mentioned that you had been working with her previously?

Also: Montana, I disagree with your removal of the fanpov tag - this is another issue I noted as pervasive when reviewing contributions, not sure if it's reflective of being too close to source wording or simply the editor's writing style. Perhaps we can seek a third opinion via NPOVN or some other forum? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this problem was flagged earlier, at Challenge of the Champions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing is very difficult to detect and time consuming to deal with. CCI is virtually moribund, in that there are a large number of open investigations and nobody doing any checking on them (at least not reporting that they are doing any). The only person who has done anything there in the past few months is me, as far as I can see. So if nothing is going to happen if an investigation into this editor's work is listed there, all you have done is demoralised her.

In my view, looking to the future, we need to ensure that this editor understands what close paraphrasing is and stops doing it. We don't want to lose a useful contributor over the issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, by all means work with the editor to ensure she understands and avoids close paraphrasing, and I will work on the CCI-type checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I need your help please. One of my articles was just flagged for copyright, blanked out, and I have some time to submit a rewrite for it. It was Justlettersandnumbers. I am perplexed as to why he was checking the article for copyright in the first place (how did he find it I mean), unless someone pointed him in that direction. Anyway, I left him a message that you had filed the CCI on me and we were working through the issues. I just went through the article source compared to source and left a rewrite where I am supposed to. The earwig shows a drastic difference now. But I would really appreciate it if you could go through it too. You are the only one I trust right now. It's at [1]. You have been doing such super work on all these articles. Also, I am beginning to think that my idea of close paraphrasing is different than Wikipedia's and that I need to get even more vigilant in my writing. I really feel like, even though this is really tough, I'm glad it happened now rather than later. I needed to see that this Earwig tool is not enough and that I need to get some help on my writing so that it really is free of any close paraphrasing issues. Anyway, please can you look at this? I am also hoping this other editor is not going to go around flagging more articles. Perhaps you could focus on the ones I created from now on and then work on the ones that I only edited? Just a thought. Thanks a bunch, hope you doing well. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn, I've done some reworking on that draft - there were definitely some areas still too close to the sources, particularly with the Peter book and the Media Guide. I'd also suggest you take a look at reorganizing the page, as it seems like there is some repetition/overlap of content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria I just read over your changes. All I can say is they are awesome! How can I aspire to write even half as well as you? When I see all of the close paraphrasing that I missed, it is very disheartening. However, I am the only one writing articles in the bull riding area, so I am determined to do better and keep on. When I finish writing my article userdraft on Wanda Harper Bush, barrel rider and Pearl Harbor hall of fame bull, will you read them over before I move them to mainspace? I know I can't lean on you forever, but just this once maybe? I will work on your suggestion regarding the layout of the American Bucking Bull article tomorrow. Thanks doesn't seem like enough. Especially considering all the work you are doing. Have a good night. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria I spent a couple days on this article [2], rewriting since JLAN says it must be from scratch. Of course, the infobox and tables should be okay to keep. And the categories. Anyway, I removed the repetition and duplication. I went a different way in some of the article. I also added some new content to address these talk page concerns: the split article request, not enough third party sources, and not enough information about the American Bucking Bull breed being used in the real world. Pretty please, could you look at it when you have some time? I give you carte blanche. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria As usual, your input and edits are top-drawer. I have to fix some code in the bullet section where the bulls are though, my bad. Also need to enhance that area a bit in the descripions. But otherwise, it's looking much better thanks to you. I believe I've done better as far as close paraphrasing, but the writing could be better; I was working faster than I normally have to since I know I only have a week to finish it from the date of the template being added. But I actually think this article will be better than the original now. Thanks so much really. I know you are busy. dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I would suggest some additional work on the Breeding section, as it is still a bit disjointed - this was also the section where I noted some continued closeness with the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, noted, I will work on that area some more to ensure it's better written and clean, thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, let me know when those are ready to be looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria JustLettersandNumbers says I have to write the American Bucking Bull article from scratch, sigh. Anyway, she has just posted an endorse on my CCI page request. Added a list of all my article diffs. She asked Fram to go through all my articles but he declined saying he had already given an opinion. However, the main copy violation she is citing isn't even accurate. If you went to that article's talk page, you'd see the content she is accusing me of copying, from paragraph of source. However, she seems to forget that other editors have modified this page too. She did no research, just assumed it was my edit. However, I went into the history and I can prove I did not write the version she is accusing me of copying. If you look at any version prior to the one that montanabw edited (which I give a link to in the talk page, you can easily see that the version I originally wrote is not an exact copy of the source. I have explained this on the talk page and am waiting for a reply. But I thought you should know. JLAN seems very zealous about what she is doing. I think she wants to take over the CCI from you. I don't know how these things are supposed to work, though. Thanks for saying you will look at my drafts, btw. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

JLAN clarified and I was mistaken. I assumed the copyright violations were on the mainspace article. There were not. They were violations on my userdraft article. So no mistake made. I did copy in source text the same way I did in Wanda Bush Harper which Fram pointed out. Obviously will never do again... It was back when I had no idea it was wrong over a year ago...but there you go. It was never shown to the Wikipedia reader base. I wish she would have pointed out it was in userspace though. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Even in userspace it's not technically allowed to copy big chunks from a non-free source - if you're going to draft that way it should be done offline. However, the best way to avoid problems might be to not draft that way in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You missed about 20 articles that should have an N. The proof is in the history. Want the list? Also, what does the strike out mean? Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add the N; if some are missing that's likely an issue with the tool. JLAN asked if articles that had been checked could be struck - that's not all that have, just a quick run-through. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, hope you are doing well. I saw you did some articles today, none of them are mine as either expands or creations. Here is an article that I moved to mainspace last night. It's super short and so is its source. It's been a userdraft for a year, so I figured either move it or lose it. I did some rewriting of it and additions too. You'd probably come across it anyway, so why not now while it's still vulnerable to others who look for new articles that have issues. I have auto-patrol but it could still potentially get hit. It's Christopher O'Shea an actor. Yep, not rodeo. I have two actor articles from Madam Secretary (TV series) now. Perhaps you should review them both at the same time as they will probably have similar issues, the other is also short Chris Petrovski. You'd do it eventually too also. Thanks! On your list for the next time you'd do more would be great. Also, thank you for your continuing edits.dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn, note this edit - make sure to provide attribution for copying within Wikipedia. I also got a bit confused by the first Life para in that article, and I think it might be because you're treating One Tree Hill as postsecondary? It's actually a high school. Regarding the O'Shea article, see this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks much for the feedback and edits. I reorganized the first paragraph of Petrovsky. I see what you mean about that website ArticleBio. I've been trying to find more reliable sites. Also, I knew about the attribution for taking text from the Madam Secretary article, what was I thinking? I did this properly between Scamper and Charmayne James. Thanks so much! You're tops in my book. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, hope you are doing well. Regarding the conversation in my open CCI, montanabw has been updating the contrib survey JLAN created. The admin lazyges created a new, official contrib survey at the end of the page. Whatever montanabw crosses off the survey, lazyges marks off the official list. If you could update the list with the others you have done, that would be great. Then lazyges could also update the official list. Also, you may want to see what articles montanabw has checked over to prevent duplication. Once you've updated it, I think we will see that montanabw is correct in saying the list is almost done. Thanks so much again for checking these articles. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the articles you checked and worked on the past week. Bonner Bolton was a little verbose, I had not gotten around to fixing it. It's not really why you are there, so I appreciate your cutting it down in size. I saw that you had edited my article on Oscar the bucking bull. It reminded me that when I was rewriting American Bucking Bull, you and JLAN had both been able to use the ABB magazine issue of their Media Guide at www.issuu.com that I had referenced in the Source section of the article. Since you are able to access this, I had been meaning to add the article I used from issuu.com from a different ABB magazine for Oscar and let you know that you could check the citation marked 1 when you got there. But you beat me to it. Anyhow, you are still welcome to check it out, you will find it in the Source section under References and the article on Bob Barmsby: A Bovine Legend starts on page 30 in the article. He is Oscar's breeder. I did a run through myself awhile ago before I realized you could do so. Also, I think I may have found an online source for one of the references for my article on V-61 that you could use for checking only. It's not useful for a citation because it is just two pictures of a newspaper article from the ProRodeo Sports News posted in a forum or I also have them in Pinterest. Do you have Pinterest? I'll get to that tomorrow. Thanks again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I finally found the link for the pictures of the newspaper article. I was so sure I had them in my V-61 bookmark folder, but they were not there. I don't know what happened but at least I found them. V-61 is difficult to search on, even in the Bucking Stock Connection forum. Here's the link so that the corresponding source in the article can be checked over: [3]. If you save the images so you can open them in an editor, you can zoom in or make them larger for reading purposes. If you don't get to them right away, I can try to work on them as far as those pictures. Obviously, they cannot be used as citations. But they are copies of actual newspapers, so reliable in that way. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikki! I've been looking over your edits on Oscar, Code Blue, and V-61 to study them regarding the changes as per paraphrasing and encyclopedic tone in reference to all of my bull riding articles in the future. I really want to write better articles going forward as well any editing of existing ones. I see so much in them that I want to emulate, so thank you. Other articles that you've edited as well, these are just more recent in my memory. Speaking of which, I was so pleased with your changes to Bruiser, which is about a bull who is still active and assuming he wins the PBR World Champion Bull this year in about one month (he's ahead two points), will become one of the top five greatest bucking bulls ever in any circuit. So, yes think Secretariat or Seabiscuit in horse racing. Oh, btw, I saw where you found my mistake I left behind...I fixed it. I did not mean to leave some text behind that I did so it's gone. I also found a missing quotation in the Young Guns Challenge section. If you see anything else, please... I realize the article is quite long, I had a few in DYK complain about its length. I put a comparison in the talk page to similar horse article lengths. Bruiser is in the middle actually. Just to note, I only included his most notable rides; there have been a total of 100 attempts recorded on him in both circuits. But I still think if I can make it more concise, it would good because there is more to come to write about him. Any advice is welcome naturally. I also have a couple other long articles on equally important subjects. They also had quotes that were paraphrased to make DYK happy and should be converted back. One is J.W. Harris and the other is Shepherd Hills Tested. Would you like me to help with these long articles? These two also shared a section until an editor in DYK modified it in one, J.W. Harris. It was all about the J.W. Hart bull riding event. Oh, recently I edited an article by another editor and contributed a bit more than 50% to it. It's a short article. The subject was written about for being a country music singer. But he briefly mentioned for roping. He was in my Watchlist and when it came up I noticed in my search that he had a "Cowboy Profile" on the PRCA website. So I expanded his article to include his very notable career in team roping, including 5 trips to the National Finals Rodeo. Anyway, I run on. Please add Dean Tuftin to your list. Thanks! Have a great evening or morning whenever you see this. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikki! Just a friendly reminder. It's been a few weeks. Don't forget about me please? :)) My last message gave some direction of some articles. Hope you are doing well. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits the other day. I wanted to ask you about a close paraphrasing/copyright violation issue I came across. In Lane Frost I reverted some disruptive content. I then found some source to support the content I had reverted. I then noticed that said source had been used to write an entire section in the article, and said section was mostly close paraphrase and copyright violation. It had not been cited before, which is why no one had ever caught it. The editor who did this was an IP user from about 10 years ago who had only made one edit. I was adding it just to back up Lane's birth place and his family's residence at that time. It is probably a primary source as it is currently maintained by his family? Obviously, it needs fixed. Can I just rewrite the existing content in that section, or do I really need to find secondary and tertiary sources? It might take a few. The source is [4] and the section is Early life. Your insight most invaluable in this iconic rodeo star's article. People may just say that sometimes, but they made a Hollywood movie about him. I mean to make this article an FA someday. I'm starting a slow process to work on his article a little bit every now and then. I hope you can be the reviewer some day. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn, if your goal is to get the article to FA, I'd recommend a conservative interpretation of WP:PSTS - while it's okay to have some simple factual information cited to a primary/non-independent source, the higher quality of sourcing you can get the better. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki, very helpful, I will try to find better sources. I have time, I don't have to find it all at once. I will explain to other editors in th edit summary or maybe a message in the talk page. Thanks again! dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I haven't checked in lately. But I just created a list in my User space for myself, but you might find it useful too. It shows that there are only five articles that I created left to be reviewed and five articles I expanded significantly to be reviewed. And then there are four where I made minor contributions remaining. I put those first in the list. Following that are the full lists of all articles that have been reviewed and need reviewed, and they are marked by who reviewed them, either you or Montanabw. The last list is very long, but it is "Other Articles minimal contribution or wikignoming" and should not require much editing or any editing. Hope this helps! I hope we are very close to the end. User:Dawnleelynn/Article Progress dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria Awhile ago, I asked if you would look over a couple userdrafts in my Userspace when I got them finished and you said sure. It has taken me longer to get to them than I thought. Well, I just finished one. I'd like to have you just check it over for any close paraphrasing and anything you might see that sticks out to you. It's a short article and has a reasonable amount of references for once. I mean to put it through DYK once it is final. While it's waiting in the queue, I'll start working again on the other userdraft. It's User:Dawnleelynn/Wanda Harper Bush Wanda Harper Bush. I'll totally trust your edits. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Nikkimaria I could use some policy advice on an issue please. It's about bibliographies. I don't believe in coincidences too much. The very day after I pumped up Joni Eareckson Tada's bibliography with more books, a drive-by editor came by to say that there were too many books in it and tagged the article with the advert tag. I responded with a couple examples of other Christian authors and asked what difference was there between those authors and Joni. He responded with the WP:OSE policy. Now I am really in it above my head. I just don't know enough policy to know what is correct. The WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY policy does not state that there is limit to just a few books. I can't find where the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy says that too many books listed is spam or advertising. I have seen dozens of authors' biographies list many books. See discussion here: [[5]] Can you help me? Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dawnleelynn. OSE is an essay, albeit a useful one, and doesn't have the weight of a policy or guideline. However, I think there are a few issues in this particular case. First, there has been extensive scholarship on eg. the works of CS Lewis, which doesn't seem to be the case for Tada's bibliography. Second, given the overall length of the article, the long lists dominate in a way that they wouldn't in a more extensive biography - several sections in the neutrality policy discuss balance and due weight "proportional to [the topic's] treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". While NOT doesn't explicitly forbid long bibliographies, I can see how this might be interpreted as promotional. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As for the Bush article, I took a look through it and made some edits. One thing I noticed was that there seemed to be some sections more broadly related to history of the sport, associations, etc, that were not well incorporated into the biographical parts. Suggest either splitting some of this content to other articles or thinking about how to better weave these together. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria Regarding the Bush article, I took your suggestion and ended up moving some content to a rodeo association article and then altering some other content to weave it into relevant content about the subject. It's much better. You were right, the info about how the previous association started belonged in the current association article. And your other edits were, of course, very helpful. I am still thinking about the other article on Tada regarding the bibliography, but definitely found what you said helpful. Thank you very much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria haven't heard from you in awhile or seen any edits so we can get my CCI closed. I updated the sandbox User:Dawnleelynn/Article Progress awhile ago. There are only five created articles to finish. Just a friendly reminder. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod, I'll take another look probably this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on Guy Allen and Mary Burger. It's been quite awhile since I wrote them. You did great on them, but I have learned so much since then. With Guy Allen you didn't change that much and I just see a few copy edits that need done mostly; it looks pretty good. But with Burger, after seeing your edits, I can I need to do some rewriting on it much like I have done with some of the other barrel racers I wrote back in last summer. Good stuff you did, thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn, thanks. On the Burger article you'll see there was one bit I commented out rather than removing - that's because the source link is dead and I can't find a copy on archive.org. Can you see if you can track it down while you're working on the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh I meant to respond to that as well, sorry my bad. The WPRA web site has reorganized their pages. The links have all changed. I just need to update it. I haven't gotten them updated on all the articles. The PBR and the ProBullStats web sites have also redesigned their sites recently too and they weren't nice enough to provide redirects. Just saying in case you run into these as well in any other articles you might work on for me. There are a lot of PBR citations that need updating now; it will take some time.

Hi, Nikkimaria, it's been a long time, so hope all is well. I know you haven't done any edits for awhile but that's ok. I said I would make edits to update URLs due to three websites that have or are redesigning their websites. I have done what I can for the remaining articles I created and the articles I expanded significantly. So in that article progresss userdraft I created, these are what are remaining. Created: PBR Global Cup, Unleash the Beast Series, and List of Professional Bull Riders Champions. Articles Expanded: Bud Light Cup Series, Buster Welch although this was for Atsme, Kody Lostroh, Built Ford Tough Series rewrote, Carl Nafzger added a section, Clem McSpadden added a section, and Dean Tuftin the singer section someone else; I added the rodeo part. I also used the Checklinks tool on all of them and every article needed fixes. The article progress userdraft I have also lists some articles where I wikignomed. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Project MUSE acknowledgement

Hi Nikkimaria. I was granted Project MUSE access via TWL a couple of years ago, and since then have been acknowledging this access using the code via=Project Muse|subscription=yes within citation templates. Yesterday, I found citation cleaner bot removing exactly this code. Was this acknowledgement necessary in the first place? Is there a different way I should be doing it? Or is the bot misfiring? I'm asking you because you were facilitating access when I received it; apologies if I should be asking someone else. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, I've asked about that edit at the bot's talk page - I don't believe it's correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification: I've watchlisted that page. I have also reverted the bot in the one instance I linked here, and I'll check my watchlist for other instances. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 at Women in Red

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Respecting MEDRS Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions. Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter. This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog. Evidence pyramid leading up to clinical guidelines, from WP:MEDRS Links World Cup scorers bubble chart, by the league in which they play, query run on Wikidata Timeline of discoveries of natural satellites in the solar system, query run on Wikidata 4800 Welsh portraits added to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata, National Library of Wales blogpost 27 June 2018, by Jason.nlw The "deaditors" of Wikipedia, Hay Kranen blogpost, 15 June 2018 Six dimensions of open access, polemical tweet, 17 June 2018 If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Nikkimaria: Please forgive me if I am asking something obvious. I found some images for some 19th-century railroad maps at the web site for the Library of Congress: [6]. May we capture these images and upload them to the Commons, provided they are old enough? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oldsanfelipe, yes - pretty much anything published in the US before 1923 is now in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

FA for Fawad Khan

Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it.Amirk94391 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

CUP (Wikipedia Library Card Platform)

Hi there. You approved my CUP request on 17 March 2018.[7] When do you think I'll get a follow-up mail in order to get actual actual access and stuff? Looking forward to your response. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You should have already - I will follow up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. Could you ping me on your talk page when its settled? Thanks much, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Any news? Haven't heard anything for more than two weeks, so I thought I should stop by. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Heard "we're looking into it" late last week, will let you know if anything more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Aight. Thanks for the prompt reply. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You should have received your login details by email now. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response...Yep, I did. Thanks alot! - LouisAragon (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: NM, you also approved my request for JSTOR. However, for some reason I didn't receive a follow-up mail. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That needs to get processed on their side yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 27 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikia

Just curious, by why isn't Wikia allowed in the external links section? --Donald Trung (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Richards (surgeon) redux

Nikkimaria, does the latest round of added material bring the total over the 1500 original prose characters needed? If so, please post there, and I'll see about getting a reviewer to check the article/nomination as it stands now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And the same for Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Croker-King, which has also been added to. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue VI, June 2018 Headlines From the team: New look; Promotion: flyer Armenia report: Museums workers experiencing Wikidata power Australia report: Wikipedia Making Public Histories Brazil report: A GLAMWiki on the Belgian Heritage in Brazil France report: Archaeology day in Toulouse; Institut National d'Histoire de l'art; Palais des beaux-arts de Lille Germany report: Cornerstone ceremony MiQua Indonesia report: From Eastern Indonesia on Commons Italy report: Wiki Weekend in Trentino; Fortezza delle Verrucole edit-a-thon Macedonia report: Wiki Tour in the City Library, WWI editing days & WikiGap Skopje Netherlands report: Wiki writing sprint Open Science New Zealand report: A New Zealand Wikipedian at Large Russia report: All Russia under a free license Serbia report: GLAM Seminar, WIR and GLAM/Edu camp Sweden report: SMVK upload; Swedish National Archives; Wikidata connects Swedish people / archives using Wikidata tool hub; Topographical register at the Swedish National Archives; LIBRIS XL - Bibframe 2.0 and open linked data UK report: Wikidata at Oxford USA report: Wiki Loves Pride 2018 + Bootcamp Wikidata report: Concordance, Cloud, Citations & Commons Wikimania report: GLAM at Wikimania 2018 Wikimedia and Libraries User Group: Poll to direct activities WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Commons and Wikimania Calendar: July's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing the images for North Cascades National Park as it is now a Featured Article!--MONGO (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not reviewed

I sometimes see my new articles patrolled and reviewed within hours. Do you have ideas why Adele Briscoe Looscan has not been reviewed from three days ago? Could there be a problem with images I uploaded? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe, to be quite honest, I expect most patrollers don't check the status of images when patrolling new articles. It's more likely instead that there was some variation in either the number of new articles or the number of available patrollers that resulted in your article dropping off well down on the feed before it was seen, and as you can see there is quite a backlog of unpatrolled pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

question

I wanted to apply for Elsevier ScienceDirect which ive had for medical editing for several years, however the apply says there are none available[8], do you know when this might change, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sam? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Last, First}}

It is required that the defaultsort template be used in biographies, please remember to include it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Plugging the gaps – Wikimania report Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources. Hackathon mentoring table wiring Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume. If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online". Plugbar buildup at the Hackathon Links ScienceSource focus list (shortcut WD:SSFL on Wikidata), project to tag a first-pass open access medical bibliography on Wikidata, and also overcome the systematic biases in the medical literature by curation. Wikimedia Foundation and Kiwix partner to grow offline access to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost 18 July 2018. Wikipedia's upcoming Cape Town conference will tackle the issue of diversity, Jamie Matroos, 2 July 2018. VideoWiki, a video version of Wikipedia. Search Full-Text within 4M+ Books, by MEK, The Open Library Blog, 14 July 2018 More than 5,000 German scientists have published papers in pseudo-scientific journals, NDR, 19 July 2018. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

image review for the Hyuga FAC

I'd be grateful if you had the time to take a gander at the images on the Japanese battleship Hyūga article for the FAC. You raised questions about some of them in the ACR, but the license has been revised and I believe that they're now up to snuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madeleine Kamman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordon Bleu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed infobox for multi-branch or multi-nation service

As a long-time template editor, I have proposed to create a multi-service variation of "Template:Infobox military person" to list multiple service periods, branches or allegiance sets, separated by infobox section headers as if multiple offices held. Join discussion at infobox: "Template_talk:Infobox_military_person #Need variation for multi-branch service". -Wikid77 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Tom Driberg

Hi, Nikki. An IP has twice attempted to replace the longstanding fair-use lead imagein the Driberg article with File:Thomas Drieburg.jpg on the grounds that the latter is free. I have nothing against the proposed replacement image, but have questioned whether it is in fact free in the United States, and have reinstated the earlier image pro tem. Can clarify the US status of the replacement? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Believe it would be free in the US - UK Crown Copyright generally expires worldwide, unless there was a US publication not mentioned on the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Nothing from the NPG source suggests a US publication, so I think the image can be reasonably assumed as free. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul Montgomery

The cause of death was clearly sourced in the article. You referred to the template documentation which reads "Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." In the case of Montgomery, his sudden and premature death caused the end of Play Incorporated and that entire stream of innovation, so it is significant. I await you self-reverting your mistake, mislabeled "ce" Trackinfo (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trackinfo, that contention regarding the significance of his death does not appear to be supported by the article, and even if it were, it would seem to be the date rather than the cause specifically that would be key. On that basis, I don't believe it warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I added additional content and sources to support that. Feel free to revert your edit. Trackinfo (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trackinfo, nice work. However, as your edits address my first point but not my second, I still believe that inclusion is not warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to BWV

I like the idea to just explain the abbreviation BWV. The link goes to one of the longest articles we have, - seems a bit too much at that point in an article, to me at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that article doesn't even make the top 500 of our longest! And given the implementation of page previews, having the link gives both the explanation and the option to click for more. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

For me, the explanation in the "abbr" seems enough, and looks more decent in pure black, without blue ;) - How do you think are BWV numbers (even small) part of a title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Some readers may want to click through to read more - I don't see that we should deprive them of that option because the explanation is enough for us. Not everyone even knows what a catalogue of a composer's work means. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Highbeam

Nikki, I see you were the last person to edit WP:HighBeam. Do you know if the Highbeam service is no longer available for research? I asked for another renewal from the cengage email contact recently and never heard back. Many thanks. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fiachra10003, Highbeam has announced it's shutting down so won't be distributing or renewing accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Lige Clarke

Hi. How do I fix the error in the date format of the JSTOR article please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: The template won't support that description. The discussion here recommended using a dash for the season and a single year. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor and translator

Hi Nikki. I cite two sources at User:Dudley Miles/sandbox#Sources where I show the editor but it should really be editor and translator, and I cannot see how to do that. They are Greenway, Henry, Archdeacon and Nelson, Annals of St-Bertin. Can you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: This is what is technically recommended, or using both the editor and translator params and just listing the same person. You could also add the person as the author and just throw the note in there, but that's not ideal either. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Nikki. I prefer the last solution as it shows the citation the way I think it should be shown. I get an error message with it, but most readers will not see it. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

PS Now it is not giving an error message. I do not know why it did when I tried it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious web page

Hi Nikkimaria: I found an external link within the first sentence of Almeda Road Bridge over Brays Bayou. If I understand correctly, the normal thing to do would be moving the external link from the main part of the article to an external link section. When I click through, however, I received a warning message headed, "Your connection is not private." Would it be better to remove the link altogether? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: I would think so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright question

If I might presume on your expertise again, I've found some scanned postcards of German torpedo boats at [9] that would be nice to use. I think that I could claim Anonymous-EU (unknown commercial photographer) with the 70 years expiring no later than 2012, but, I'm not sure that they're PD in the US as they would have been still under copyright in 1996. Are these usable on Commons, or do I need to go fair use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Based on what you're describing, you'd need to go fair use unless any of the postcards were produced before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP watch

Just in case you're interested, I have links on my user page for BLPs that cite The Sun and The Daily Mail. I've had the former down to about 35 at one point, but I see it's gone up again :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue VII, July 2018 Headlines Armenia report: Collaborating with GLAM Structure: Armenian Content Replenished in 45 Wikipedias Australia report: A land of ragged mountains Brazil report: Rare cartographic collection uploaded by Brazilian GLAM France report: Wikidata workshop around heritage Germany report: The European Cultural Heritage Summit in Berlin and two visits in Potsdam Italy report: Monuments and minorities Macedonia report: The month of Festivals covered on Wikipedia Netherlands report: Matching the GTAA thesaurus with Wikidata; Hands-on Pattypan training Norway report: Seminar at The National Archives of Norway and Sami music and culture festivals Serbia report: Wikipedian in Residence at the Museum of Yugoslavia: History of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia Sweden report: National Library of Sweden UK report: Oxford GLAMs and Celtic Knot 2018 USA report: Summer in July Special story: Commons transcription tool Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 29, June–July 2018 Wikidata report: News from Cape Town, Aberystwyth, Berlin, Milan and Everywhere Calendar: August's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Water Mill at Kollen Near Nuenen

Why did you undo my edit? Your one word edit summary isn't very descriptive at all. Multichill (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: The edit lacks references to reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I'm just adding an infobox. The infobox only shows data from Wikidata that's sourced. Improving that is the next step. Multichill (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: If you compare the data added in your edit with the corresponding Wikidata item, you will find that in fact it is not sourced there either. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to troll me? You sure seem to be succeeding. The Wikidata item contains two catalogs and an external link. This is just plain sabotage. Multichill (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: Thanks for adding citations for those datapoints at Wikidata. Generally speaking we don't count external links as being citations, as it's not clear what info if any is supported by them. For some reason the template isn't filtering unsourced information as it should be, so when adding it double-check that the data passed through is appropriately sourced and doesn't contradict what's already in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Are you trying to troll me?" Is that what passes for collegiate editing these days? Who is trolling whom here, exactly?

Thank you, Nikkimaria, for highlighting the need for this article to have some sources (not just better sources - any sources). It seems a bit stupid to add an out of date and unreliable source to Wikidata, and then import incorrect information to display prominently in a box with an awful image, when very good sources exist that can be used to expand the article with some encyclopedic text.

No doubt some imaginary editors will come along shortly to correct the other misleading, misformed, or mistaken disinfoboxes added to other articles (so many errors) but I am not holding my breath. 213.205.240.178 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Irakli Tsereteli FAC

Hi, just want to see if you had a chance to follow up on what I did regarding the images on the article. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Some CE

Hi, Nikki - I barely started prepping Morgan le Fay when I was sidetracked and had to focus on a few other issues. An editor I've been mentoring has done a wonderful job editing that article and others in that genre, and I suggested adding some of them to his already remarkable GA/FA credentials. He also has a Quarter Million Award under his belt. I'm leaving in a few days for a 2 week photo safari up north (if you need a particular photograph from Yellowstone National Park, let me know) and was hoping you could give Morgan a copyedit review? Thank you in advance....^{Atsme📞📧} 02:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

NM - it appears to me that the Arthurian legends are riddled with multiple versions, along with an occasional splash of incestuous relationships, and little to no consistency. I'm thinking the editor I've been mentoring has undertaken a rather ambitious project in an attempt to clear-up the confusion. It's not an easy chore, so I came by to say thank YOU with the utmost appreciation and sincerity. I'm following behind you, trying to clarify the segments you've marked, and when I can't resolve the issue, I tag it. Re: the wiki linked articles - say for instance Ywain and Urien - corroborate the information in Morgan. That's how I was able to decipher what was being said. The way I see it, our WP articles are actually clearing up the confusion and providing an encyclopedic version, so not all instances are trivia or TMI. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Greetings,

do you think you can take a look at the images of Ubinas, which is currently in FAC? Thanks in advance! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Interested in a peer review for a well-known children's literature author?

Hello Nikki! I see in the Peer review list that one of your interests is children's literature. I wrote the article for Arkady Leokum, who created the "Tell Me Why" book series (which everyone seemed to love when we were kids). Prior to my writing and sourcing it, it was just a stub. So I've requested a peer review to improve it, and move it out of any status with flags, and possibly even better, to a feature article. Interested? Many thanks! Here are the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Arkady_Leokum/archive1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_Leokum Lettucecup (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup

Please stop disruption

at BWV 208/BWV 208a related pages. You chose to discontinue your participation in the talk page discussions about this content: that doesn't give you the right to force your preferred solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you looked at that talk page, and at the ANI discussion, and concluded the appropriate next step would be to revert the unmerging as "vandalism", there's not really anything I can say to help you. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Def Jam Vendetta

Hi, thanks for the correction on reliable sources. Would this be considered a reliable source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5jw4WZvxVE4 or would I need a news article covering the scene or character? Dogshu (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dogshu, per this RfC we should include a secondary source indicating the significance of the reference, rather than a primary source like that clip. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Would this work (page 211)? https://books.google.com/books?id=02-Vx86EGFsC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=christopher+judge+def+jam+vendetta+2003&source=bl&ots=sdsAPDPdVg&sig=t_kVRZrjtT3fPiY50cC87mYadT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwovnL__zcAhUNna0KHXT2BaEQ6AEwGnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=christopher%20judge%20def%20jam%20vendetta%202003&f=false Dogshu (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dogshu, that's just a copy of our article on Judge - see PediaPress. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Neglected diseases Anti-parasitic drugs being distributed in Côte d'Ivoire What's a Neglected Disease?, ScienceSource video To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases. A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list. From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers. Links Wikipedia, Wikidata, and citations, a census, August 2 2018, blogpost by Magnus Manske The rise of Wikidata as a linked data source August 6, 2018, by Karen Smith-Yoshimura on OCLC Research blog Where do Mayors Come From: Querying Wikidata with Python and SPARQL, August 1 2018, Parametric Thoughts blog Newspapers On Wikipedia Update: Initial Wikidata Pass 9 August 2018, Mike Caulfield Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories Alberto Martín-Martín, Enrique Orduna-Malea, Mike Thelwall, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, arxiv.org, submitted on 15 August 2018 If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Winter Olympics 2030

I am just seeing your message but i can't find the page Wifey93 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wifey93, looks like that page was deleted after this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Would I just remake the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like per that discussion it should wait until the bidding process starts. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Jana Marie Duggar

I just created a page for her and now I have someone wanting to delete it and I haven't even been able to finish it. So I wrote back to them on their talk page and no reply. I told them to let me finish the page first as I was doing it on my tablet and my wifi went out so I only was able to get the first few paragraphs on there and the reference section won't work on it and I was trying to add that on. If you can reason with that person. Thanks Wifey93 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikki now my John David Duggar page is up for deletion. Can you please check on what I need to update there.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a deletion request on that page? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Licensing query

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well. Could you advise on two images I'd like to use? Both are on Commons, but the licensing on both is inadequate and I'm not sure if they are OK to use. Both are (I think) OK in UK law (according to the British Library copyright flowchart), but I'm not sure about US use. The two images are:

• File:Henry Pierrepoint 1909.jpg
• File:Pierrepoints.jpg

Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, in both cases we'd need to know when and where the image was first published in order to assess its status. Is any more info available? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not that I can find at the moment (although I'm only on a mobile with patchy signal in the middle of Italy at the moment!) I'll have a bit more of a dig around over the next week, and see what I can find. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, An update on this: I've not found any publishing date on this, and neither has someone else who is superb at tracking down the licensing info, so I'll delete these files and upload one of them locally. (I've found a free one for the other). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

• New partners
  • Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
• Wikimania
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Trigger-happy reverting in play?

So, you twice removed my little edit it 'Dance Hall Days', first claiming non-reliable source, and when I added different sources, claiming God knows what (probably significance?), at least that's what I managed to deduce from hte RfC you sent me to read, without any additional explanation.

I understood from your first revert, as well as from your discussion above, that user-generated sites are not considered reliable sources, while news articles are; never mind how retarded this policy is, if you think about it, since wikis, routinely examined by hundreds of users, are more likely to be accurate than some news article written by one guy, (and hopefully looked by at least one other), but whatever. I can understand IMDb not being considered reliable for bios/opinions, but for something as trivial as the listing of tracks on a CD - Amazon and IMDb should be considered sufficiently reliable.

To summarize what happened - I added a short, 100% true, easily verifiable, piece of trivia, which is completely in line with what you'd expect to find in a "pop culture" section - a reference to where the particular piece that is the subject of the article was featured in popular culture. Considering the fact that the popular culture (in this case: GTA VC) is a few orders of magnitudes more popular than the song itself, I think significance does not need to be established.

Maybe you are unhappy about the quality of the sources? Strange, because I verified that Amazon track lists are frequently cited as references on pages for simple dry facts such as which song appeared where, and never mind that the track listing for the actual "Dance Hall Days" release on the same page cites no references whatsoever; I guess that is not important.

In short, no wiki, no IMDb, and not even a product content description from Amazon is considered a good enough reference for a small simple fact. Only if someone happened to have mentioned it in some mainstream (not self-published, God forbid) newspaper would it be worthy of inclusion in a secondary section in a small article on an obscure song. Since it is rather easy to believe that no mainstream publication ever considered this little fact important enough to discuss, it is likely that such a reference does not exist. So there you go, we have 100% true, 100% verifiable, 100% relevant, 100% significant information, that is simply not allowed to appear in the article, because no mainstream publication ever found it important enough to talk about. And you don't see the absurdity of this approach?

I'm not interested in lengthy discussion of various Wikipedia policies, such as RS, V, UNDUE and other things that sound important. I was been involved in a similar process a year ago, and learned from it that all the over-zealous "reverters" have absolutely no interest in actually improving articles, or raising the bar in Wikipedia in general; they are simply happy to nitpick specific edits, revert them, citing some random policy that seems fit, and by doing so raise their "contributions" count with zero effort. Let someone else try to do the hard work of figuring out how to improve articles with useful content, and at the same time adhere to arbitrary standards.

Been there, done that; no interest in wasting my time appeasing self-appointed "guardians" of Grade F articles on obscure and unimportant subjects. I've invested what I deem as a fair amount of effort trying to add what I thought was an interesting piece of info for someone who, like me, randomly stumbles upon the article. Any more is simply not worth it.

Why am I wasting even more time writing to you on your page? Because I feel, also based on my past experience, that the attitude you expressed here is one of the things wrong with Wikipedia; and if you or others will take some time to ponder on it, maybe in the long run things will improve.

Have a good week. :) Drst (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a wall of text :) . I get that you think that bit of trivia is "100% relevant, 100% significant", and an improvement to the article; I disagree. You have options to resolve that disagreement, if you're interested in pursuing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with Mark Aubry

Nikki, do you have time to help with content review at Mark Aubry? I recently wrote this article on a Canadian doctor. An editor has made some suggestions, but I am struggling to understand his points. Comments are located at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Aubry if you are willing to help. Thanks, Flibirigit (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flibirigit, is your question in regards to his paraphrasing concerns, or neutrality? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Both, actually. A third opinion and suggestions or changes would be fine with me. Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am slowly working through the paraphrasing issues, as they have been elaborated on in the template discussion. If you could, please suggest ways to improve the Sports Medicine section, and the concerns with undue weight. Thanks in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

John David Duggar

Can you please help me fix my reference on my page as I can't seem to get it just right as it's saying there is an issue. As well someone took offense when I made the page and called it my page. That's the last editor prior to me that has been giving me a hard time on my page and contributions lately. Here is a link to the page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_David_Duggar#. Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discovery One / Popular Culture

Hello User talk:Nikkimaria. While my source was not excellent regarding the Hermes, it is better sourced that the other "Popular Culture" passage that has zero references. That being said, I am reposting it with a couple of stronger sources, the WIRED article especially. GeeBee60 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Dear Nikki,
I would like to inform you, My application for JSTOR shows that it has been approved on 08/25/2018 but still have not received any email or details for access! So could you please check and inform me what is the situation ? Kind Regards Déjà vu • ✉ 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@DejaVu: The request has to be processed by JSTOR yet, which will take some more time, possibly a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, Thank you so much. all the best Déjà vu • ✉ 23:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image rights question

This commons image [10] is licensed under a creative commons license with "some rights reserved." The license says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." How do I determine the manner of attribution desired by the author? I included this image in the article, Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: The default is by simply providing a link to the image description page where that attribution is listed, and that's done by default by the MediaWiki software. You shouldn't need to do anything special if you're just using that image on a page. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In recognition of patiently answering all of my questions. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Renewing my Highbeam account

Hi Nikkimaria. Can you tell me how to renew my Highbeam account? I had one from Wikipedia for many years, and it last expired in the fall of 2017. The procedure for renewal changed and I never was renewed. Can you tell me how to recover or renew my Wikipedia Highbeam account? Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Unfortunately it's not possible - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Is there some way I can be notified when Highbeam is back in communication with Wikipedia? Samwalton9 (WMF) wrote that "we'll send out an email to users with access to Highbeam", but I don't currently have access so I wouldn't be on that list. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: You have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue VIII, August 2018 Headlines Armenia report: Museums workers experiencing Wikidata power Australia report: WikiTourAU and Researchers Week Brazil report: Brazilian Wikimedians develop tools for mass contributions: Mbabel and Import-500px France report: Ceramics and monuments Germany report: Wikipedia meets antiquity in Xanten Ireland report: Stories and Connections: Editing workshop in National Gallery of Ireland Kosovo report: First WoALUG contribution to this newsletter Macedonia report: WikiCity tour in Kočani and Vinica Malaysia report: World Library and Information Congress 2018 Portugal report: GLAMifying the National Library Republic of Korea report: Launch of GLAM Newsletter on Repupublic of Korea Serbia report: Wikimedians in residence at two Serbian museums Sweden report: FindingGLAMs; National Library of Sweden; Crowdsourcing Structured Data on Commons for GLAMs UK report: Sum of All Astrolabes; Exploring Collections with Wikidata USA report: Wiknics and Wikidata Wikidata report: Upcoming conferences, and more WMF GLAM report: Wikimania, Wikimedians in Residence, Structured Data on Commons, and upcoming conferences Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio and promotion from 2007

Please compare the text of Link-Lee House to p. 41 of Black Gold to Bluegrass: From the Oil Fields of Texas to Spindletop Farm of Kentucky by Fred B. McKinley and Greg Riley created by the account Special:Contributions/Fredbmckinley in 2007. This article takes verbatim pieces from the book without the use of quotation marks, which would undermine the claim that, "(This is a new article. Information obtained by my extensive research while writing the book cited above. Fred B. McKinley)[.]" Even if the account holder is the author of the book, (but I am guessing this was a sock) am I correct in assuming that verbatim blocks of text from this book cannot be retained in Wikipedia? Best, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oldsanfelipe. If the editor were indeed the author of the book as claimed, their ability to release the text would depend on the terms of their agreement with the publisher - see WP:DCP. If as you guess they are not, the circumstances you describe would likely exceed the bounds of fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have no way to determine the identity of the account or a possible release of rights. I know that there are rights reserved by Eakins Press in 2005. Furthermore, most of the text in the article were taken verbatim from the book without attribution: there were no quotation marks or inline citations, violating MOS:QUOTE and MOS:PMC. Just the volume of material used in the article would violate MOS:QUOTE, even with proper attribution. I will edit Link-Lee House accordingly. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthem and royal anthem in Canada article

Hey! I had yesterday edited the Canada article to add the anthem and the royal anthem. But I ponder why was it reverted? is there any issue with the audio? Adithya Pergade (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adithya Pergade, those files have been discussed extensively on the article talk page - see for example this Request for Comment which concluded that none of the anthem files should be included, and if you use the search box at the top of Talk:Canada you'll find several other discussions. If you feel strongly about the matter I suggest opening a new discussion there to see if consensus on the matter may have changed; however, given that the RfC was only a few months ago, I rather suspect the answer will be no. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Memory Alpha links

I noticed your removal of Memory Alpha links from BLP articles, and I cordially invite you to share your thoughts about their appropriateness here. 2001:5A8:0:1:0:0:0:40B (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

JSTOR

It says you approved my application for JSTOR access through Wikipedia's Library Card Platform. I received an Email saying "You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed". So far 18 days have passed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR is setting up the accounts this week. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

So that means I will get access details this week?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should do, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks!--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A month has passed and nothing changed. I am asking you simply cause I have no idea to whom to turn.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I will see if I can find out what is going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This ref was on the main FBI article, and was transferred over during the fork. - wolf 19:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Image: Capitol Hotel

I have a question about the rights of an image and if it’s suitable for upload to Wikipedia. The Texas Handbook Online posted a late-1800s advertisement for the architecture practice of George E. Dickey. The ad includes a lithograph of the Capitol Hotel, which is relevant to Rice Lofts, William Marsh Rice, Rice University, and Jesse H. Jones. Obviously George E. Dickey is a notable architect, but Wikipedia does not have an article for him. This image can also be found at an online architecture forum.

This is obviously in the public domain as this was an advertisement used in the late 1800s, I do not know the year of publication. How should I deal with the date and the fact that it is originally posted by a non-free source? Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oldsanfelipe, can you approximate from contextual clues when it may have been published? For example, it credits Dickey with twenty years' experience, so if you knew when he started architectural work that would give you a time range. Assuming that range is pre-1923, we don't need to care what the immediate source is. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I can do that. The second Capitol Hotel was built in 1883, giving one side of the window, as he was using this image as a sample of his work. The building was demolished circa 1912, but most likely this ad preceded 1889. I will use an 1889 date (the year he completed the Sweeeny, Coombs and Fredericks Building), which is not listed as an example of his work in the ad. Dickey also dropped from the Houston City Directory after the 1905–1906 edition. His office location is another clue. Overwhelming evidence that this is many years before 1923, if that is all we need. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't delete my article without notice!

Hi. I see you turned the article Russian Sleep Experiment into a Creepypasta redirect. Although I clearly see the good faith in this, I really don't like that you did so without any prior warning or discussion. You should have brought this up on the talk page - or frankly, submit an AfD. With your six-digit edit count, you really should be more considerate. I'm not angry, I'm just saying. Gaioa (T C L) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gaioa, while I appreciate you think the article should be its own page, prediscussion/warning isn't required for a bold redirect. We'll see what happens with the CSD. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

OK, cool. I had not noticed the "works cited" section.

cbdorsett (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. The science publishing landscape In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings. The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web. The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act. Links ImageGrid SPARQL query for the Art+Feminism focus list on Wikidata. Run and then scroll ... The TABernacle tool for Wikidata editing, by Magnus Manske, has been upgraded. Demo with the ScienceSource focus list and main subjects: with a WiDar login you can edit directly in the table cells. Enslaved: People of the Historic Slave Trade, Michigan State University project for a linked open data platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature." As the Linked Data for Production (LD4P) project finishes its initial two-year cycle and moves into LD4P2, a list of its BIBFRAME and other RDF tools. Machine Learning with and for Semantic Web Knowledge Graphs, detailed slide pack by Heiko Paulheim, University of Mannheim. In Europe, Scientists Need to Share Their Research for Free if They Want Government Funding, Futurism, by Kristin House, 5 September 2018. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you help with an image review?

Hi Nikkimaria. Would you be able to do a quick check of the images at Territorial Force for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Territorial_Force/archive1? You completed a full image review during the ACR, but Ian Rose is asking for one at FAC as well. There's been only one change since the ACR – following a comment by Tony1, captions without verbs have had full stops removed. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright tags on Ludwigsburg

What tag do I use for the images of Ludwigsburg's interiors? I am totally new to image copyright. Please help, it scares and confuses me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Would it be this tag? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Not that one. For most if not all of the images, the pictured elements will be out of copyright due to age. Take a look at PD-US as a good starting point, and then something like PD-old to cover German status as well (images hosted on Commons have to be free in both the US and their country of origin). Double-check that the conditions listed in those tags apply, but that combo should work in most cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. I've tagged every interior shot of the palace used in the article with those two templates. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bulgaria FAC

Just one question on the sources: Most are {{cite web}}, of which news sources have an exact date; many other non-news sources lack one. Should these be standardised (remove existing dates or add dates where they're missing), or it's alright if the parameter is only present where available? The same goes for some of the journal citations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Tourbillon: As a general rule you want citations to be complete where possible; it's fine to omit it only when it doesn't exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added data for specific parameters whenever they're available. A lot of the web cites lack a date, so I've omitted it on those. I'm ready to answer any remarks you may have. Cheers, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Addressed your points! Sorry for taking a while, I usually have no more than an hour of spare time these few weeks. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 38 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Redux pf Newspapers.com

Samwalton9 I am also pinging you, since I haven't figured out a way to group email - or even who is in charge. This is my annual "my subscription wasn't renewed" issue. Same issue as last year with Newspapers.com; note, I emailed Nikkimaria on September 21, the same date my subscription just stopped working. No prior notice, no nothing. I requested renewal at The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, but nothing has resulted. I am currently relying heavily on Newspapers.com, and now I feel I'm up a creek. Please help get this renewed. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maile, sorry about that - several people reported the sudden shutdown, and I believe Sam was waiting for a response from Newspapers.com about what the issue was. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, Samwalton9 and Nikkimaria, the issue still exists two weeks after I reported it to you. I can search on Newspapers.com. I just can't look at anything I find. And unless some prodding is done, if last year is an example, nothing will happen. My subscription was originally, according to Newspaper.com, July 2016. This happened last year, and I think it took until September to get it resolved. So, how many months this year? Please keep on it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and Maile66: In this case it's simply that it came to the end of your yearly access and renewal was needed. I wish we could do better at giving forward notice for this, but Newspapers.com is one of the only partners where we know reliably that each account lasts for exactly one year from creation. I've filed T206511 because I do think this is a reasonable request and it's something we'd planned to work on eventually. Thanks for your feedback :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Samwalton9, yes I already knew that. Last year it was a renewal issue, and it took them several months to even look at it to bother renewing it. In this case, it's been more than two weeks, and they haven't even looked at the renewal request. — Maile (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Are you able to process the latest Newspapers.com applications soon? :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them today, sorry I've been caught up in my senior capstone project at university. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: submitted to the vendor about 2 minutes ago should be active again in 24 to 72 hours. Apologies for the delay, as I mentioned above I'm in the middle of my senior capstone project at my university, as such school is taking up almost all of my free time. My apologies for the delay. In the future feel free to nudge me on my talk page, I get a ping on IRC when people leave a message there, so that will usually go striaght to my cell phone. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done according to the vendor. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ben Margulies

Hi Nikki Just came across this page and it is missing references for almost every paragraph.

I know some of this is common knowledge but it can't just be written without references

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Margulies#Subsequent%20career

Also missing references from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariah_Carey

Wifey93 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right - looks like the page is tagged as requiring additional citations, but there's quite a backlog. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing infobox on Stanley Kubrick

Hi Nikkimaria! First off would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it seems you have done quite a lot.

I had created an infobox on director Stanley Kubrick's page. I had no idea about the previous (and multiple) discussions regarding the matter. It seemed like there was a ban on infoboxes until September 10th, 2018.

I would like to propose that we keep it (and update it with any other pertinent information editor's would like to add). I have read the discussions and have really only seen an argument against one as an Editor's personal preference due to their distaste for "Idiotboxes" - mainly retired user @Cassianto.

I have been using Wikipedia for 10+ years and have been an avid reader. I have learned countless things about passionate subjects and have used this is a resource for papers in school. However I also love to browse it and read up on historical people and their achievements in my spare time. I do not contribute much to it as I am not an expert on anything really (maybe some cars) but I have to say I was so taken aback by the lack of one on Mr. Kubrick's page that I took the time to create one with data consistent of other pages. I understand that the lead on that page is extremely well written and has a multitude of good information, but I don't that is a good substitute for an infobox. I truly believe that the infobox is the first place many (not all) readers look and that it is an astounding visual resource for fast facts. From there readers will read the article. I think infoboxes are a great introductory visual for a biographical article such as this one. Furthermore infoboxes are something that I associate with Wikipedia pages and believe that they should be consistent in that matter, especially on biographical pages of people with extreme historical significance.

The last thing I would like to do is start a hotheaded debate on whether or not an infobox should be added to the Stanley Kubrick biographical page. However I am part of the audience that uses this website for it's intended purpose - and there have been others just like me who feel the need for an infobox on this page. I have spoken to many of my peers (also fellow Wikipedia users) and they have all found it strange that one was not on Stanley Kubrick's page. I know that editors and contributors do see them differently, but I think that a good amount of readers associate them with people who are significant IE if someone doesn't have one then they aren't important.

I don't want this debate to get out of hand, but I think it's time that infoboxes be discussed again and that a compromise can be made. This subject has been coming up way too much with this page in particular.

Thanks very much for your time Nikkimaria!

Willydrach (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Willydrach, given the history here, it would make more sense to discuss the matter on the article's talk page to see if consensus has changed. Since these templates aren't required, re-adding without such discussion is not the best way to proceed, even if you personally find the arguments made previously unpersuasive. Also, FYI, there are discretionary sanctions in place that are intended to help moderate such debates. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

TWL

Hi, I am sorry for asking here but the current interface for The Wikipedia Library is one of the most arcane things I've ever seen on Wikipedia and I cannot figure it out at all - very pretty but not terribly useful from an end-user perspective. I see that it says you approved my application for JSTOR access and I did indeed get an email on 26 August from a noreply address saying that I should be signed up within a couple of weeks. I've heard no more and can't figure out if it has happened or not. What I do know is that it is becoming a problem, in particular because we get lots of removals and changes to JSTOR-sourced information on Indic articles and I have no means of checking the veracity. A recent example being this. I could pester WP:RX but it would soon become a lot of pestering!

Can you advise, please? Either regarding the status or how to actually work my way around that interface after logging in. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Essentially what has happened is that your application was forwarded to JSTOR for them to set up, and that hasn't happened yet. I'm chatting to them right now about how to get that done, so hopefully it will be soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's great. Thanks for persevering. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I am sorry to jump in the bandwagon but that, JSTOR is one of the most valuable tools to source information, (as to Indic-areas), being restricted to 6 articles per month is quite frustrating.

And, I received the same mail as Sitush, on 26 August but no updates thereafter:(∯WBG^converse 14:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes - you guys aren't alone, everyone in this renewal batch is in the same boat of waiting for JSTOR to process the apps. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Any updates?∯WBG^converse 10:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My information is that people who were renewing should now be able to access using their existing accounts, and new applicants will be receiving an email with their account details within the next few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Marty Feldman

Your Edit summary said "See template documentation." What template documentation? HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you're referring to the test that says "...should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability". So it would most commonly be omitted. I get that. But Feldman died at a surprisingly young age for someone of his generation. Among those of us who had been his fans it was certainly a topic of conversion at times, e.g. How come he died so young? What did he die of? I certainly won't fight over it, but I think an argument could be presented that his early death, and its likely cause, was a significant part of his story. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Early death, yes; specific cause, not so much. Consider, what difference would it have made if he'd instead died of, for example, cancer? It's not like the James Dean example. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Slim Pickens

In this article you haven't reviewed yet, there's been an issue with an editor. It would probably turn into an edit war if I revert again. Another editor had tried to revert before me. He wants the lead sentence to say "Slim Pickens is" not "Slim Pickens" was. But this former actor and rodeo performer has passed on sometime ago. The editor has cited WP:TENSE. From there I saw MOS:TENSE and cited a line from there, it's in the edit summary. I can't find anything else to support "was". But, I looked at many famous dead people and they all have "was". Could you take a look please, since you would look at sometime anyway? dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message for the IP at his/her talk page to explain the matter - hopefully he or she will not continue to revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Great message. I see an admin named Acroterion also reverted the edit. Your message is a good learning example for me though. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed Acroterion is an admin who has been dealing with this IP before; he must have seen your message.

Do you have time for a review?

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. Would you have time to look at the FAC on Albert Pierrepoint for a source or image review? No problems if you are not able. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra Curtis

Hi I noticed there are two conflicting pages for Alexandra Curtis aka Tony Curtis's daughter. It does mention an Alexandra D Curtis who is a pageant contestant and if you look around you can find her page on here but at first glance it looks like someone merged the pages but they are supposed to be two different people as the corner was born in 1954 and the latter was born in 1991. I can't seem to correct it for the original poster.

This is the page they are merged on https://www.google.ca/search?client=tablet-android-lenovo&sa=X&biw=601&bih=962&q=Alexandra+Curtis&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MDY1T8lS4gYxDY2TU8wy8rT4AlKLivPzgjNTUssTK4sBb7SavSoAAAA&npsic=-539&ved=0ahUKEwiYjOmu7_3dAhUOJnwKHYlNCkEQ-BYIPQ

This is then the page for Alexandra D Curtis but it could be confusing for some https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Curtis

This link is Tony Curtis's daughter Alexandra https://www.google.ca/search?client=tablet-android-lenovo&sa=X&q=alexandra+curtis&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LWz9U3MDROTjHLyFPiAnHSKzMy4nO0JLOTrfQLUvMLclKBVFFxfp5VcWZSTmZeOgDZiDHXNgAAAA&ved=2ahUKEwi8jdvH8f3dAhUoiVQKHYYyAewQmxMoBTASegQIChBH&biw=601&bih=962

That is her actual page after I looked around a bit

If you can see why there is a glitch thank you Wifey93 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like Alexandra Curtis is entirely about the pageant contestant - is there info there that appears to you to be about someone else? We don't seem to have an article on Tony Curtis' daughter. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue IX, September 2018 Headlines Albania report: Collections of Museums in Albania Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata Australia report: WikiTour AU Brazil report: Developing tGLAM: a landing-page generator for GLAM initiatives France report: European Heritage Days; Linked data for archaeology; Paris: Edit-a-thon at Mobilier National Germany report: History of Women and Democracy, Wikipedia-Culture-Ambassadors and two GLAM-on-Tour-stations in just four weeks Macedonia report: Wiki camps in Macedonia Malaysia report: Wikipedia for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museum Mexico report: Open GLAM Mexico 2018 Netherlands report: >20,000 press photographs 1940-1990 uploaded, GLAM Wiki Meeting, Aerial Photographs, GLAM-Wiki Manual & Wikipedia Course for Historical Societies Norway report: Women in Red; Researhers Days 2018; The 2019 edition of #wikinobel Poland report: Archival photographs and literary knowledge enrich Polish Wikipedia Serbia report: Impact of GLAM seminars: Decentralization of GLAM activities Sweden report: Wikidata P3595 Biografiskt lexikon för Finland; Student Project at the Nordic Museum; Learning about sources on Swedish Wikipedia UK report: Botanical illustrations and Wiki Loves Monuments in Scotland USA report: Back to school Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 30, August–September 2018 Wikidata report: Wikidata Tour Down Under Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Robert Gordon Gridiron Football

Hi I can't seem to get this reference to show up properly https://www.bluebombers.com/2018/10/09/hall-fame-profile-robert-gordon/

For the page below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gordon_(gridiron_football)#/editor/1

Can you look into it? When I try to do the regular format it tries to say the link is broken.

Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra Curtis 2

I did find her IMDB page at the last link that I sent you but I was reading an article about Jamie Lee Curtis and there were wiki pages to her Father,Mother and siblings which is where I saw her page as she was born in 1964 but the pageant contestant was born in 1991 and for some reason it's grouped with Jamie Lee Curtis family. I can't seem to find the other wiki page that was for her sibling Alexandra now but it was definitely at those links that I found. So strange.

Sorry for some reason it won't let me posted reply on the original discussion as it gives an error. Wifey93 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

White wagtail edit

Sorry to bother you but, I see that you removed a citation from the white wagtail article and was wondering why. thanks, Qwerty1. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Qwerty number1, I don't believe I've made any edits to White wagtail? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is odd, it doesn't come up now?! SOO sorry for mistake. Qwerty number1 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I may have muddled it up with the goulian finch? Sorry for the mistake. Qwerty number1 (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Qwerty number1, do you mean Gouldian finch? If so, the reason is that user-generated sources like open wikis are not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwerty number1 (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

copyrights

Hello Nikkimaria. I am a little confused regarding an image I found online. It is the only image I found online for a coin representing a king of Egypt (Ptolemy XII). That king minted the portrait of his ancestor, Ptolemy I, on the majority of his coins, so a coin depicting XII himself is a rare sight and will be useful for Wikipedia.

Now, the problem is that this coin is only available on the website of Boston fine arts museum. According to this website:

The MFA retains all rights it may hold, including copyright, in data, images, software, documentation, text, video, audio, and other information on the Website (the “Materials”). The MFA does not warrant that use of the Materials displayed on the Website will not infringe the rights of third parties. Copyright and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals or entities other than, or in addition to, the MFA. The MFA prohibits the copying of any protected materials on this website, except for the purposes of fair use as defined below. link 1

But, when I go to the image's page itself, I can see the option to download it, and when I press it, it takes me to a page that mention the next: link 2

Images of artworks the Museum believes to be in the public domain are available for download. By downloading this image you agree to the MFA’s Terms of Use.

So, if it is available for download because its in the public domain, am I allowed to upload it to Wiki? Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria, the short answer is probably not. In the US, when you take a picture of a 3D work like a coin, there are two copyrights to consider: that of the original creator of the work, and that of the photographer. I would read the second message you cite as saying the original creator of the coin's copyright has now expired (as would make sense for an ancient coin). However, the terms of use (the first message) state that the MFA's rights, which in this case would be the copyright of the photo, are retained. Thus, if you or someone else went and photographed the coin, it would be fine to upload; however, the MFA photo is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks alot. Too bad we cant use it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

I really appreciated the detailed feedback on the images and sources for the Bulgaria FAC. A lot of things that I had overlooked were taken care of, and the article finally got the star after several years of work on it. Thanks! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't click on the link, but please look at the edit

User:Nikkimaria, Please look at the latest edit at Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The citation links to a web site with a ".ch" extension and the access-date is for 2012. I did not see anything wrong with other recent edits by this IP. I could not corroborate the content of the edit, a corruption allegation involving Boeing and President Truman, but I do not know the period well enough to dismiss it, either. The purported title of the article cited looks strange as well. Please advise. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: Looks like the citation, including the accessdate, was copied from Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, and the context there includes a link to this article. Without looking at the source directly, it seems plausible. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. The page is a book excerpt and it does support the claim, so I improved the citation, including an update of the access date. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Wikidata imaged Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock. Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists. Gran Teatro, Cáceres, Spain, at night It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more. And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more. Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake. Birthday logo Links Now Wikidata is six, Signpost Special Report Find out how @TheContentMine are attempting to mine scientific and medical literature to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia., Wikimedia UK tweet and video ScienceSource and the Semantic Web sciencesource-pmc-licenses tool by Oravrattas to extract Creative Commons license information from PubMed Central pages, created at the Cambridge Wikidata Workshop Whizzy use of SPARQL to map the London Underground system, whizzed past on Twitter. Wikidata birthday events mapped by SPARQL, too d:Wikidata:Sixth Birthday/Message from dev team If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for copyright status

Hi Nikkimaria! I've found this rather interesting page, about the film unit of EAM-ELAS the leftist World War II-era resistance group in Greece. The images it contains are very valuable for resistance and WWII-era politics topics.

The website is quite detailed, mentioning the names of the two operators, the unit director, and an artistic collaborator. Everything was shot between 1943 and early 1945. The brother of one of the operators gave the films to the National Movie Library some years ago. My question is, are these images suitable for upload in Wikipedia/Commons? If so, under what license?

The films were made for an organization that ceased to exist and was even declared illegal in 1947, and one that probably would have loathed the notion of copyright, if it ever considered it. Are they under EAM's copyright(and in that case, does that apply, since 70 years have passed), or not? Having been donated to a national foundation, I suppose that a) either no copyright was claimed by the relatives of the operators and/or b) that as foundation property, no copyright applies. The entire surviving content has furthermore already been uploaded to youtube by the same person who wrote the article above. Thanks in advance for your assistance! Constantine ✍ 15:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine, were the films published around the time they were shot? What was the director's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Published", probably not as such. They may have been shown at partisan gatherings, but that was informal at best. Given the politics of the period, it is very doubtful that they registered or were shown with any official sanction at any time before 1974. I guess they were handed over to the state sometime after that (my guess would be the 1980s) Nowadays they are often seen in documentaries etc, and they are well known in Greece, since they are the only such media on such an important period of our history. The director, the painter Dimitris Megalidis, died in 1979. However, in the articles his role is not "film director" (σκηνοθέτης), but rather unit supervisor or headsman (προϊστάμενος). He definitely had some artistic input, but separating clearly between roles is probably futile (this was a four-man team in wartime conditions after all). Constantine ✍ 16:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greek definition of "published" is "when the work thereby becomes accessible to a circle of persons wider than the narrow circle of the family and the immediate social circle of the author, regardless of whether the persons of this wider circle are at the same or at different locations". Do you have a sense of at what point that definition is likely to have been met? Are the death dates of the other team members known? Would the team likely have been paid by the larger organization for producing these films? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on the team members. They are mentioned here and there, but without specifics. The first operator, Ioannis Nisyriou, served as front photographer in 1940, and Papadoukas appears in his 30s in this wartime pic and rather old in an 1990s interview. As for payment, I would be very surprised if it were so. This was not contracted work, but done as part of the Resistance, by people who were both ELAS members (i.e., military personnel) and Communist Party members. On the "publication", I have yet to find any firm indication that this was shown contemporary with events, even though the newsreel nature of the clips would suggest that. The amazing thing is that even their names were not known until 2011, when that little article appeared... I thought about asking directly at the Film Museum, but given how lax Greece is with copyright laws, I doubt they would know better, and either way, I am concerned about hosting it in Commons, which is another animal altogether... Constantine ✍ 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Given what you've described, I would think it unlikely that the films would be free in both Greece and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I was afraid of that, but thanks. Does this also apply to photos (e.g. those on the website linked above) that were taken by them but were published at the time? Constantine ✍ 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. If this was not contracted work, the relevant copyright term in Greece would be life+70 - a death date of 1979 wouldn't be long ago enough to make the images PD in Greece. The copyright may be have expired in the US, which would allow local upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, would you mind posting a comment on the Meklin talk page about the awards section? Your original edit, which was supported by consensus has been (repeatedly) removed, and in the ensuing discussion, PlanespotterA320 is making comments to the effect that you support their edits, basically speaking on your behalf in your absence. The discussion had gone somewhat off the rails and I wouldn't expect you to read the whole page, but the most recent comment by Peacemaker67 basically sums up the the matter well. A comment making your position clear would be helpful. Thanks - wolf 15:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that I have much to add to what Peacemaker's said. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR access

Dear Niki,
I applied for JSTOR library's access on Aug. 25, 2018. It has been reviewed and approved by you on Sept. 23!
Unfortunately I have not received any respond from partner or anyone else yet!! could please check and inform me what is my application's situation now. kind regards --Déjà vu • ✉ 03:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been told emails should be going out within the next couple of days. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ann Thomas Callahan

On 9 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ann Thomas Callahan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ann Thomas Callahan was one of the first indigenous graduates of the Winnipeg General Hospital's nursing school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ann Thomas Callahan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ann Thomas Callahan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue X, October 2018 Headlines Belgium report: Erbstuecke edit-a-thon; Women in Tech edit-a-thon; Wiki Club Brussels; Wikidata workshop + party Brazil report: "There is no reason not to participate in a GLAM-Wiki initiative": an interview with the director of the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy Estonia report: Estonian art and geoscience collections finding their way to Commons Finland report: (RE)Photographic autumn France report: GLAMWiki 2018 Tel Aviv; City of Grenoble Germany report: GLAMorous Conferences Netherlands report: ‘More Gelders Heritage available via Wikimedia’ by Erfgoed Gelderland; Writing week Friesland; Wiki Techstorm Norway report: Wiki Loves Monuments and wikinobel Poland report: Heirlooms - locally and internationally Serbia report: The growing GLAM Sweden report: Roundtripping Project, Books Import and Wikidata Imported to SOCH Switzerland report: Built heritage conservation on Commons; les sans pagEs at a Modern art museum UK report: Wikidata in Oxford USA report: Wikiconference North America Culture Crawl WMF GLAM report: Documentation survey, Structured Data on Commons consultations, blog posts and conferences Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

EC on Teresa Sampsonia?

Looks like you accidentally deleted my FAC post? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! Now corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nighthawks Revision

Hello. I made a recent edit to the Nighthawks page for an assignment, adding in a popular culture reference not previously listed: a recreation of the Nighthawks scenery in a comic book series called X-Factor. This reference was soon removed by you with the claim that it was "not significant." I was wondering why that is. The popular culture section does not have an explicit standard on what is "significant" and what is not. Even the occasional use of the Nighthawks image in a game board, for example, holds significance, so why not X-Factor, a well-known comic book series? I also believe many will find it interesting that the Nighthawks painting was referenced in the series X-Factor because the series is influenced by the noir style, and Nighthawks is known for its close ties with film noir, as cited by other contributors to the page. Respectfully, I believe X-Factor's reference to Nighthawks has a well-earned place among the list of popular culture references to the painting and may be more recognizable than many of the other equally valid entries to some viewers of the page.

Kindly Saa011 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saa011: The standard is secondary sourcing demonstrating significance, as established by this RfC. If there are other entries there that do not meet that standard, you're welcome to propose their removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: What should be included in the popular culture section, or whether or not there should be such a section, still appears to be quite the debate. Nonetheless, from the link you provided, I do understand the removal of my contribution. I am not in the interest, however, of removing others' content, as I do find them valuable and do not believe I have as much grounds to determine which information should be removed. Thank you for the response! Saa011 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Civil War Photos

Hello Nikkimaria - Please help me! Are Library of Congress Civil War photos OK to use in Wikipedia? In some cases, there is no evidence that the photos were ever published. I have used a lot of them in 1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. For most of them, I just found them in Wikimedia. For a few, I downloaded them myself. Is it OK to use them? It seems to me that if they are not OK, then Wikipedia has some Featured Articles in the Military History category that have photos that should not be used. Examples are 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, George B. McClellan, James A. Garfield. What can and cannot be used, and what type of licensing should they have? TwoScars (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@TwoScars: If the image in question was published (not just created) before 1923, or if it was created by the US federal government, then it's okay to use. In other cases, it depends. There's not really a blanket licensing statement that can be applied to every single LoC image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to re-assess article

Dear Nikkimaria, I have made significant improvements following your suggestions, after you tagged the article Yearbook on International Communist Affairs as needing improvement. Please check out the talk page there where I explain better. I would like to request your re-assessment of the article. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 5:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Fencepost limestone image relocation

While I appreciate most of the corrections you made to the article, the relocations of the leading images breaks their relevancy (at full screen their new locations are puzzling). I need to consider how to locate the those images with the relevant paragraphs (lead, Background, and Fencing, respectively), yet preserve your intent (or delete them, since I think they fit poorly in the new locations, at least when viewed at full page width). IveGoneAway (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

With a long infobox and a short lead, it simply isn't possible to have another image in the lead. You could expand the lead or condense the infobox to get more image space in the first section, but even then are unlikely to have room for another image in the lead. Keep in mind that "full screen" and the size of the images will both vary by person. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking about how to fix the layout, now the 4 images are clustering out of context under the infobox. Are you willing to let me take a stab at it? I am figuring you could tolerate me putting one' image on the left under "Background". ("another image in the lead"? there is none there now?)

Ideally, I would want 3 images as hooks with the lead, illustrating the three primary aspects of the Fencepost (visual story building); its historic beauty in Kansas architecture, its iconic status within the state, and its unique geological identity within the Midcontinent. The Cawker Library was intended as a beautiful visual hook (why you should read the article), the sign image was intended to establish notability (why there should be a article), the Benecke is there to show the combined geographical (treeless) and geological (prominence) context (why there are stone posts). I am thinking, move the Cawker to the Gallery, move the sign to Background, and then the Benecke

I also find it interesting that you reverted a change that a geology editor had me make to all the other geology unit articles I am working on; I had United States and Canada, which they said should be United States and Canada, and you changed it back on this article. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 03:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So, I've binned the Cawker to the Gallery and have the sign back on the left, which fixed the displacement of Benecke. I can't decide on swapping the sign and Benecke.

• "Condense the infobox" - not the geology unit style.
• "You could expand the lead" - someone renamed the Introduction to Background (that section is not at all written as a background.)

Would it work to merge that section into the lead?

Other suggestions given my stated desires? IveGoneAway (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 03:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: the flag icons, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states that physical geographic articles shouldn't use flag icons in the infobox. Re: the lead, I was counting the infobox image as being in the lead; even if you merged in the current Background section (which you could do, as the lead is intended to be the introduction), without other changes you wouldn't be able to shoehorn in another, except perhaps as part of a collage in the infobox - a lot of city articles do this, see for example Denver, but the flip side is that these images are individually smaller. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"even if you merged in the current Background section" — Is it OK as IS?

"I was counting the infobox image as being in the lead" — Are you saying I lose an image if I merge the background into the lead?

"physical geographic articles shouldn't use flag icons" — Ah, but it is a geological unit article (also and Architecture article) (also a Kansas History article). So, as a geological unit article, where units are generally in one nations, then the insistence that I use the flag is appropriate? I don't know, I tend to assume anyone bothering to correct me about the wiki, know more about it than I do. The MOS you cited is pretty clear, no flags in infoboxes. They might say, "Geological units are not international." Oh, really? There is problem that the people creating a lot the geology unit stubs had the concept that units change at state borders. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No flags, no additional images in the lead. So I suppose yes, you'd lose an image by merging. It's okay to have a Background section, but if as you say that section was intended as introductory material it should be part of the introduction (lead). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo for interpretation of the abandoned Quarry

Can you advise me a way to include the illustration of the marker beds at the historic quarry site on US 183; File:Fairport Chalk by the Fencepost quarry on U.S. 183 near Schoenchen, Kansas 20180623 anno.jpg?

This is the one quarry of its type (entirely manual labor) I know of that is on a Federal highway. However, without guidance, the F-3 is generally mistaken for the Fencepost. My hope with the Access and Viewing sections is that readers (at least a handful) actually visit the locations. But at the same time, I do not want to be responsible for misdirecting them, in this case, having them pleased to believe to be looking at the Fencepost limestone, when they are not. Again, suggestions? IveGoneAway (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC) 13:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing Fencepost limestone Quarry, Ellis County, Kansas 20180623.jpg with this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmm. I really appreciated the suggestion, it gives me something to think about. The Quarry image isn't perfect, I could have done better if I had sought permission to go on the property and/or had a 15' step ladder. But then, the Road Cut image is not the quality I wanted either, I was 100s of miles away before I realized the correct interpretation for the road cut, I was off by 18 feet vertical, I was just lucky that I caught the Fencepost in a corner of the shot (I, too, was taking a picture of the wrong thing!). The only reason there is any Fencepost bed in the road cut is that the KDOT bulldozers dug deeper than the 19th C. farmers cared to go with their shovels. The Quarry image is there to help the geology tourist know when they are looking at the right place (and in a hand dug 19th C. you would never see the F-3). The Quarry picture belongs in the sightseeing section. Any such Road Cut image has to be a panorama to get all of those beds in one shot, which doesn't fit the layout of the sightseeing section. The Road Cut image belongs in the lithostratigraphy discussion, which is missing . One of these years, I would like to get a better shot. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your consistent use of non-RS in your own contributions

Nikkimaria: You consistently delete sources that have backing physical evidence, such as a reference to a grave marker. However, in your own meager contributions to Wikipedia, you consistently cite source are that even weaker in the evidence backing them. If a website that you use for a citation has a link to an original source for the information that is provided, then research that source and cite it instead. Many, many, many websites are nothing more than a collection of unverified garbage. Learn to research properly, and cite verifiable sources, not just websites.

Be advised - you are being watched! 2602:306:8091:7BB0:C54B:897E:954D:39BD (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP. Some websites are unverified garbage, and some meet our standards for reliable sourcing. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is intended to be based primarily on reliable secondary sources, not direct physical evidence. If there is a specific source that I use that you feel should not be used, feel free to raise that specifically so we can discuss it; if there's a source that I've removed that you feel should not be removed, likewise, although in most cases they are ones where consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard has considered them to be unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just thought that I should chime in also: You grossly abuse your position. You do not own Wikipedia. See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_own_Wikipedia 24.196.247.53 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP, I'm familiar with that essay, but given its content it doesn't seem relevant to this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC help

Hello! I have an FAC nom currently which seems to be stalling and hasn't gotten any input yet. I always see you doing source and image reviews for FACs, can you please do one for it? Would greatly appreciate it!--NØ 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi MaranoFan, that nom's only been open for two days - it's not time to proclaim it stalled just yet! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I agree with you! Btw I have another FL nom [11] that got loads of support but only needs a source review to be passed. Would immensely appreciate one but please don't feel pressured and do it only if you find the time.--NØ 07:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't do much at FLC, but I can take a look at the FAC this weekend if no one beats me to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nikkimaria. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hello, I have an account with Newspapers.com for a while now. It hasn't been expired ever and the renewal of my account doesn't seem to be a problem. I got access to Publisher Extra last year and have access to it consistently through my Wikipedia account. Now I still have access to the Newspapers.com site but not to newspapers which are Publisher Extra. Do you have any idea why this happened? A lot of my research requires me to look at newspaper articles that are beyond the 1920s and I need Publisher Extra to do that. Thanks. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Cameron's handling this. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng Zhongguo

Nikkimaria, it's been a while—I hope you're doing well. The above DYK nomination appears to be stalled due to previously mentioned similarities to source material; can I ask you to please check to see whether you see anything concerning, and if so, give at least one example? I'd like to get this one moving again. Thank you very much for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal why?

Trying to understand why you removed/trimmed a cause of death Here when every other professional wrestler cause of death has been listed on other articles as well as other articles outside of wrestling? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is this detail significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The same reason it is on every other article, people want to know the cause, was it drugs, was it health, was it an accident, it's right there. You gave no legit reason for the removal, The same information can be found on several other articles so why did you chose this 1 article to remove it? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That something is found in other articles is neither here nor there - that doesn't make it a key fact that warrants inclusion in the infobox, as opposed to simply in the article body. It's not particularly significant that a middle-aged man had a heart attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How is that for you to decide? Does it go against Manual Of Style?, No it does not. It is significant when that middle aged man had suffered from Drug and Alcohol issues and yet that wasn't the cause of death. Key fact, You still have not given a legitimate reason for the removal except you don't think its significant. Also please note that it is part of the template for Pro Wrestlers and has been since it was created. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is that for you to decide? Just because something exists in the template doesn't mean it must be included on every page. You obviously feel it's significant, I obviously don't. The relevant MOS page says to include only key facts and avoid bloat, and the relevant template documentation requires that the information be sourced which it currently isn't. If it can be sourced, we can look at starting an RfC to get a wider set of opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC then, it isnt bloat when its part of the template for that specific Infobox. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, just because something's available in the template doesn't mean it always has to be included. It does need to be sourced though. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced in the Death section of the article, Clearly you haven't read the article. Of the 100000's wrestling articles you only did it to this one and your responses are basically avoiding giving a legit reason to remove it. You want to rfc then by all means rfc, I have no problem with that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The only source currently in the Death section appears after the first sentence, which doesn't mention the cause of death; if that reference is meant to support other content in the section, it ought to be repeated or moved, per our conventions around citation placement. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So first it isn't sourced but now it is but not properly, its sourced, if you think the source needs to move or be copied then move it or copy it, but you removed part of the infobox instead first stating it wasnt significant and bloat and then saying it wasn't sourced when it was. You have given no legitimate reason for the removal. You suggested RfC so either RfC or dont, I have no issue going with RfC for this, but I have no real reason to start one when the article is formatted the same way as others and uses the Template created for them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Since I don't have full-text access to that source, I have no way of confirming whether it supports the cause of death or the other details in that section which it is not currently placed to cite. If you do have this source and can confirm what it does or doesn't include, go ahead and cite those details. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a second source, Please let me know if you still want to RfC this and we can continue this there.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. WikiCite issue GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California. Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018 In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point. Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector. Links Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018) LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University Shell Lessons for Librarians, Library Carpentry lesson At-risk content on Flickr, blogpost 3 November 2018, Andrew Gray Toward an Abstract Wikipedia, recent white paper by Wikidata founder Denny Vrandečić (Google) Account creation is now open on the ScienceSource wiki, where you can see SPARQL visualisations of text mining. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)